Let me start off by saying thank you for the opportunity to come and address the standing committee. My name is Dale Harley and I am the general manager of Orgaworld Canada—not just Ottawa but the whole shooting match we have here.
We're a Netherlands-based company that uses innovative technologies to process organic waste into high-quality compost that is sold to the agricultural community to help rehabilitate soil and replace the need for chemical fertilizers. We are truly closing the loop when it comes to waste management.
Orgaworld currently operates two plants in Ontario, one in London and one in Ottawa, that are permitted to process up to 300,000 tonnes of source-separated organics per year. We are Ontario's single largest processor of SSO. We are in the process of expanding across Canada and we hope to have two new plants operating, in B.C. and Alberta, in the near future.
According to the 2013 report by the Conference Board of Canada, Canada ranked lowest internationally of 17 OECD countries for our record on waste management. Nationally the total amount of residential and non-residential non-hazardous waste sent for disposal in 2010 was a whopping 25 million tonnes.
For the purpose of this presentation, I'd like to focus on the management of organics as opposed to talking about all waste streams.
According to a 2006 Natural Resources Canada report, there were 6.7 million tonnes of organic waste produced in Canada, second only to paper. That was back in 2006. Since that time, it's my understanding, organics now represent the largest single stream of waste coming into the waste stream system.
Across Canada there are significant variances among provinces as to how they deal with this organic waste. Ontario and Quebec have general non-mandatory goals for diverting materials from landfills, with a net goal of approximately 60% diversion. One of the primary mechanisms used to achieve this has been the diversion of organics from the municipal sector. But the overall diversion goals have not been achieved, and the industrial, commercial and institutional sector continues to generate significant quantities of organics that are landfilled. Various municipalities, such as the City of Toronto, have gone above that 60% goal and self-imposed a target of 70% diversion.
Nova Scotia has had an organics ban for almost 20 years now and is really a leader in Canada in this area. Other maritime provinces are beginning to impose similar regulations, and British Columbia is now moving towards an organics ban as well. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have fledgling regulatory systems in place, while Alberta's promotion of organics diversion is driven by the specified gas emitters regulation, which seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions through a cap-and-trade system. In this respect, a number of organic diversion projects have been developed to create offset credits in the marketplace.
By comparison, the European Union has made significant progress in diverting organics from their landfills. In 1999 the EU adopted a landfill directive that called for a reduction of organics to 35% of their 1995 tonnes by either 2016 or 2020. In the U.K. they instituted a landfill tax that was to rise to $86 a tonne by 2011, and in fact that tax today stands at $144 per tonne. In Germany they introduced a disposal restriction of less than 3% organics.
What Canada needs is a national ban on organics going into landfills. This ban would not only be good for the environment but would also be good for the economy and the reduction of greenhouse gases.
One of the strongest points in favour of the zero-waste concept is the impact on job creation. According to a European Commission study, 400,000 jobs could be created in Europe if they implemented the current EU waste policies. The environment commissioner, Janez Potocnik, said:
We need to see waste as a resource—and to bury that resource in the ground is worse than short-sighted. This report shows that waste management and recycling can make a big contribution to economic growth and job creation.
That report actually went on to find that four jobs could be created for every 10,000 tonnes per year of compost that was produced.
Looking at it from a greenhouse gas perspective, waste management is the fourth-largest contributor to greenhouse gases. ln terms of greenhouse gases, there are a number of benefits to organic diversion.
First of all, organics in landfills create methane, which is actually 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. While many landfills attempt to collect and destroy this methane gas before emission, it's not possible to collect it all. Generally, landfills successfully recover only about half of all the methane they produce. The end result is all of that entering our atmosphere.
Next, landfills are generally further away from municipal hubs than are localized organics processing facilities or handling facilities. Generally, the trucking and diesel fuel consumption associated with hauling to the landfill is greater than diverting to nearer organics facilities.
Also, organics that enter a landfill provide no nutrient value. Organics that are converted into compost, at least at Orgaworld, can be used to displace petroleum-based fertilizers, which is a significant greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
The U.S. EPA estimates that diverted food waste can actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.42 tonnes equivalent of carbon dioxide per imperial ton of food. For California alone, looking at their food waste bulk, the total potential emission reduction is nearly six million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Given that a typical vehicle emits 4.7 tonnes of CO2 per year, the food waste processing in California could thus potentially reduce the equivalent of 1.28 million cars' worth of greenhouse gas emissions. We would expect the same here in Canada, given our equivalent population.
ln closing, I'd like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to speak on this important topic. There is definitely an opportunity for the federal government to take a leadership role in waste management and the banning of organics from landfill sites. Such a ban would be good for the economy and for reducing greenhouse gases.
When appropriate, I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
I thank the committee for inviting me as well to address you today. It's certainly an honour.
I was told that I would have about seven minutes to talk. I've created about 30 minutes of PowerPoint slides, being a typical municipal employee, because that's what we do, right?
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry Conrad: I will get through what I can in seven minutes.
I've chosen to tell you about some of the things we do that are newer in our region or stuff we've undertaken that is unique.
We are a large municipality and consequently have a rather large budget for our operations, but really, we don't do anything that's different from what a small municipality does. We collect waste, we recycle it, and we reuse it where we can. Finally, for what we can't do any of the above to, we dispose of it, in the past at an incinerator, an EFW plant, and currently at a landfill site. Our scale affords us the ability to do some things that smaller municipalities can't do, but in the end, we're charged with handling our waste in an environmentally responsible and economically prudent fashion.
To give you a bit of a background on the kind of waste we handle in the region, in 2013 we handled roughly 510,000 tonnes. This won't add up, so don't bother adding it up, but roughly 90,000 tonnes of that was organics. Those organics were made up of yard waste, leaves, and the organics, the SSO, that we collect from our municipal residents. About 100,000 tonnes of that was blue box material, while 50,000 of that was from our CRCs. We have a network of CRCs. About 60% of that 50,000 was recyclable material. Finally, we disposed of about 240,000 tonnes via landfill.
The Region of Peel has a population of about 1.3 million. We're the second-largest municipality in the GTA. We span 1,200 square kilometres. We have a series of six CRCs now. We have an energy-from-waste facility. We're planning a new energy-from-waste facility. We have a MRF, a materials recovery facility. We have a landfill-gas-to-power facility. We do all of this under a strategy. Our strategy is a world without waste. That's what our vision would be.
I realize that's somewhat difficult to get to, but we've adopted our hierarchy on the 4Rs. We've based that on a balanced approach among social, environmental, and financial considerations, but more important is getting a range of input from our stakeholders and reflecting what's best for our residents.
We've had a number of key accomplishments over the last years. We're moving to a three-container system and getting away from a weekly bag collection. That will allow us to increase the amount of organics by between 10,000 and 20,000 tonnes a year. We're looking at building a new MRF. We're going to build a new organics facility. Also, we're going to build a new EFW plant.
Our vision is a world without waste. Most of our waste, we can reuse—
Our biggest undertaking currently is our PERC project.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry Conrad: Of course, we talk about this all the time, so we're used to it. It's called the Peel energy recovery centre. That is to replace an old incinerator. It's going to be built for the private sector to handle roughly 300,000 tonnes of garbage, and be owned by the Region of Peel. We'll be able to use our garbage as a resource, rather than burying it in a landfill. We have decided it's going to be a mass burn combustion unit. There are about 500 mass burn facilities around the world, so we're definitely not inventing anything new.
One of the best things I wanted to promote on that PERC, other than the environmental benefits of not landfilling and the energy production, is the number of jobs we're going to create: 300 construction jobs and upwards of 40 direct and 120 indirect jobs. In waste management, you'll always have waste. It's good for the environment, it's good for energy, but it's good to keep people employed.
We have three composting facilities. No acronyms there. We produce compost from our organic waste. Much like Orgaworld, we market it to a number of facilities. A couple of the cool and exciting things we're doing there is that we have gone in with almost every major producer of material collected from the curbside in Ontario, Orgaworld included, as well as the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario, Dr. Lambert Otten from the University of Guelph, and the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. What that's about is developing agricultural field trials to help us market material into the agricultural community. That's allowed us to open markets that weren't there before. As I said, this is all over southwestern and central Ontario. It's not just confined to the Region of Peel.
Before that, we also worked on using our compost in the Filtrexx line of products, which use compost as filter equivalents. When you spray down for roadside seeding, it's a filtration for erosion control, living walls, where they have a side of a cliff they're trying to revegetate. It was a very exciting thing, and that was in conjunction with the University of Guelph.
I could go on, but I think I'm close to the end of my presentation. I wanted to leave you with where we should go from here. Every one of you sitting around the table is an expert in the field of waste management. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on what we need to do. More needs to be done to address the political and social issues surrounding waste management. Bringing together lots of successful projects takes a lot of committed citizens. A lot of people have input into a lot of alternate technologies. Talk about energy from waste siting, as in the Port Hope area, the last one sited in Ontario; the social and political inputs are very definitely almost as important as the engineering inputs.
As Dale suggested, we need to look more at organics. Organics can be used for a lot of things besides compost. You'll never get away from composting plants, but you can use composting in an anaerobic digester—AD, I would say, but I've already been there—and co-digest it with waste water sludges and use the fuel maybe not to generate electricity, but for transportation. We're going to use natural gas-fired vehicles for our collection in our new contract, getting away from the use of diesel.
As reported on November 21, a poll of 1,044 residents across the country support EFW. This is good news because I really believe that the future of waste management is in energy production. We all know about recycling MRFs, and that's good, but how do you get that next percentile? We're on our way to trying to get to a 90% diversion from landfill rate. We're at about 50% now without EFW, but a lot of that can be done by using our stuff as energy from waste.
Waste plastic is an issue that we hear about around the world. There are uses for waste plastics, but not all waste plastics can be reused. A lot of research needs to go there.
We need to look at more research, both non-partisan and company-specific. It's important. I talked about two research projects this afternoon. We need to do a bit more research on how to use waste.
Economics, of course, needs to be addressed. New and innovative solutions take time and money to develop, but they can replace many of the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector, and I think that's important. As a federal government we need to promote industry. One of the things about waste is that as long as you have people, there is going to be waste. That waste needs to be properly managed, and the waste can do valuable jobs. As I've said to many people who have wanted to listen to me, I've lived through about three recessions through my time at Peel. A lot of that is based on the fact that waste is a resource, and we always need to deal with waste appropriately.
With that, I thank you for the time. I hope I didn't go over my seven minutes.
The answer to that is no. As I said, Orgaworld has two plants. One was our first plant in Canada, in London, Ontario. I'll admit that when we brought our technology and our operational processes into Canada, we did not take into consideration a number of things. One of those things was the expectation with respect to odour, and the second was the not-in-my-backyard mentality.
In the case of London we did have some problems; I admit that. We've invested millions of dollars. We have rectified the situation in London, and if anyone is familiar with the area now, the last time Orgaworld was in the news was about 18 months ago. It had to do with the fact that we had pleaded guilty on a charge of emitting an odour. Guess what? We did it; we paid our fine.
In the media reports the tone of the coverage was that, yes, this was a charge from back in 2010, and there are no problems at the plant anymore.
The second plant we opened up was in Ottawa, and we took our lessons learned—or the fact that we had the crap beat out of us—to heart. We did a much better job of reaching out to the community to explain what it was that we were going to be doing and how we were going to be doing it. I'm very pleased to say that in Ottawa our odour complaints in the last four years that we have been operating come to a grand total of zero.
I'll go back to our London experience. I'll admit there's still a small group of people, about five households, and it doesn't matter what I do, I will never convert them. I used to be a politician like you guys. I have the experience, I have the scars, and I just confess that they're not going to be turned over.
But in answer to your question, no.
I think the biggest problem facing us as a municipality is not NIMBY but the “don't build anything, any time, anywhere” syndrome. That has replaced NIMBY. That's why I think it's very important to bring in the social and political action ahead of time.
At the Region of Peel, we do a pretty good job of bringing parties in. We've had an incinerator around for a long time, and it's almost forgotten about. But it's the interaction with the public; you have to deal with them effectively ahead of time. It's a very long and involved process. Some of these projects take three, four, five years of lead time before you even get to letting a contract to get it done.
I think the key answer is that the science is there. Don't try to sell people on the science. Sell people on the political side, the social side of it. No one wants to live next to a stinky place, for sure, but then a lot of people don't even want to live next to a school, either, because of the noise from the kids. It's a long process.
We all have to educate our kids. We all have to dispose of our waste. We all have to take responsibility for it.
Reflecting on Larry's comments, the whole social marketing and social responsibility aspect is I think critical. There are two places where you need to do this outreach with the community. One is prior to the siting of a facility, and that is to make sure that you are cognizant and aware of all the issues or potential issues or concerns that people have. Then you have to share with them the science part, to be able to produce the evidence that shows that what people's expectations are....
People always go to the worst case scenario. Unless you tell them what is actually happening, you're not going to be able to convince them that it's not really all that bad. So fill the void in information by being proactive to get the good news story out.
The second part of that outreach happens once the facility is up and running to give people the opportunity to come and judge for themselves, come and see—or smell, in our case—what it is. I originally had started doing work in Ottawa, and about two or two and a half years ago they asked me to help out in London. The first thing I did when I got down there was to start bringing the media, the public, the politicians, through the plant to see for themselves what it was. Do you know what we discovered? They didn't detect anything. They were surprised. They were impressed. As a result of that, it gave them some confidence in standing up to the political pressure they were getting from a small group of people.
Outreach is important.
Thank you to our presenters. As a former municipal official having to deal with waste disposal, I know exactly the problems that can come into it. I did it in a more isolated location, with less opportunity, but I also spent a fair bit of time looking at solutions.
Years back, I particularly admired a city called Borlänge in Sweden. I don't know if you're familiar with it. There they bought garbage from all different municipalities, collated it in a central location, sorted it, bundled it, and saved it for the winter for their heating purposes. It was very super organized in a very effective way. This was 20 years ago.
You know, I'm troubled too by how Canada has taken a turn away from energy from waste and is only now really coming back to it. There was a lot more opposition to it at one point in time.
We've heard some of that opposition here in front of the committee. We had a presenter saying that basically, when you burn waste for energy, many harmful particulates are released into the atmosphere. Do you agree with that position, or are you confident that the work you do with waste is providing a very clean stream of emissions?
Thank you to both of you, Dale and Larry, for being here. I thought your presentations were absolutely fascinating. I'm delighted that you're here, Larry, from the Region of Peel. I knew you would be able to tell us about some of the great things that are being done in Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon, so I'm very happy you were able to make it here.
I'd like to get into the weeds a little bit if that's okay with you, weeds, leaves, or whatever, and talk about those. I'd like you to tell us a bit more about the composting facilities. I know I was very impressed to hear about them, how they work, and to see one of them in action.
Specifically I'd like it if you could tell us about the different rules and criteria for what can go in a green bin and how your facilities are different that way. Mr. Carrie talked about plastic bags and diapers. In Peel region those are not allowed in our compost bins. I'm assuming the reason is that when you're creating soil to sell back to consumers, it wouldn't work with plastic bags and diapers and other things like that.
Also, in municipalities or regions where they do accept things like diapers and plastic bags in their green bins, my understanding is that they are not actually composted. What happens is they form the top layer of a landfill somewhere. I guess it's sort of like a lesser evil. Maybe you could tell me if that's true. That's just something I've heard. There are so many misconceptions about composting and how we look after organics. I'm hoping you can talk about that.
In Peel we don't accept material that's in a plastic bag, although we do accept material that's in a biodegradable bag. That could be a biodegradable plastic or it could be a biodegradable fibre. A lot of people just wrap their stuff in newspapers.
That being said, we do get out in the community and promote that and explain it. We give examples, and we've actually submitted samples to residents for them to look at. We do that so we can produce a cleaner compost. Getting plastics out of a product that you're sending to Grandma and Grandpa's yard can be very difficult. That's where the bulk of our compost has been going—soils in the household, in the backyard garden. We don't accept diapers. We don't accept kitty litter. We don't accept pet waste or feminine hygiene products. Some of that we don't do just as a perception thing. When we're selling material, it's not very socially acceptable to say our compost was made using human waste. That being said, there's nothing wrong with it; it's just a marketing thing.
When you compare our system to the systems in the cities of Toronto, York and some others, in which they do co-collect those materials, they're using a different process. They are using the anaerobic digestion process. They are basically collecting the material and separating it off, so they can clean off the plastics. Dale can talk to this, because I know Orgaworld worked with a concrete company to take some of the plastics from their processing and use them as a fuel, but those plastics get sourced off and they just get sent to the landfill because there's really nothing else you can do with them.
In Peel, we have a two-stage system. We have two compost plants that are the first line, to which our materials go. One technology was made in Holland, and one technology was made in Germany. They're both box systems. We mix equal parts of yard waste and organic waste. That material goes into those boxes for seven days; it comes out, and then we send it to our second-line composting plant, which is actually on an old landfill site, the Chinguacousy landfill site. There we use a Gore windrow technology. The Gore cover helps to protect the compost from the environment, and the composting goes on underneath in the environment. That is our curing facility. It stays there six to eight weeks, and then we're able to screen that and produce a good product.
We produce a product that is intended to be sold as a soil amendment. You know, Grandma and Grandpa like to use a clean product. There are different classes of compost, depending on what you want to use it for, and we sell an agricultural grade as well, which is an inch and a half minus and a much rougher material. It has some of the ping-pong balls and dog toys in it and we sell that to the farmers. The farmers are okay with that. Not a lot of it is there, but it's just a different classification.
I'm not an expert on methane gas in landfills, but I do want to go back to landfills, because you had made a comment about some people producing a compost that is not of a certain quality, so it ends up being a landfill cover. I'd like to start off by saying that the compost that Orgaworld produces is AA compost. It is not used for landfill cover, and 100% of it is sold back to the agricultural community. We actually have people on waiting lists trying to get more. They want us to produce more compost. They want it that badly because it's such a good product.
I'd like to stress that plastic being added does not have an impact on the quality of the compost, because our process ensures that it is removed. It does not end up being part of the product. For example, the Ministry of the Environment actually introduced some new guidelines about what your contaminants are allowed to be, and they're going down to 1%. So you have very little or none in there.
The one advantage about plastics and receiving plastics is that they increase the ease and reduce the “yuck” factor. We find that, for example, in York and in London, two communities that have the highest number of homes participating and the highest amount of material put into their green bin program. Remember, our objective should be diversion from landfill sites, so anything you can do to make it easier to get people to participate in a program is a positive thing.
Certainly, I've been working probably for the last 10 years trying to do some projects at a cement plant in Mississauga. There are some very serious political and social issues in the neighbourhood, but the technology is such that the last time we looked at it, it was taking waste wood from our waste streams: off-cuts from housing, stuff from your house, old furniture, etc.
We looked at whether or not we could use the waste wood in the cement kiln. It's a very valuable source of fuel for some concrete plants in the world. In Germany, I know the Herhof plants, for one, produce a product called Stabilat that's fed into the concrete plants. It's very definitely a very viable option.
In Quebec, there are a couple of plants doing that already. In Ontario, most of the plants are burning some liquid waste—waste fuels, solvents, and that sort of stuff—and they do so with the full approval of the ministry of the environment.
Just before the last election in Ontario, there was some work put forward to start looking at heavily industrialized sources burning coal. That sort of died with the election, but the object there was that they were going to exempt, with due course, some of those processes from some of the environmental approvals required to do it. It is a very valuable process around the world and I know it's being done in Quebec.
Let me deal with the second one first that talks about help.
Your colleague was asking about financing, about sources of funding and what the government can do. There's actually an opportunity. Because we're a large integrated company with very deep pockets, we do what they call a lot of DBOO, or design, build, own, and operate. As a result, the taxpayer is not footing the capital costs associated with setting up one of these plants in the first place.
Another model that's used is P3s. We're actually working on one of those out west right now, and part of that does include the anaerobic digester, so we will be creating energy to go back into the grid.
I guess a third source of funding, one that's very near and dear to my heart because of my previous life, is infrastructure funding. Waste management is a very large, important piece of infrastructure that Canadians need to use. I would like to see more funding coming out of the infrastructure funds, not only to help build roads, waterways, and pipelines, but also to help with the infrastructure for waste management.
I think I answered both those questions at the same time, didn't I?
We aren't there because I don't believe we're going to get there. It's a struggle. You'll always have something that you can't divert from waste. Asbestos waste, for instance; you deal with asbestos waste in kitchen tiles and whatnot.
I think we need to set realistic and obtainable goals. I think what we as municipal people have done in the past is to say that we can divert 90% of our garbage, or 70% of our garbage. I think we've set some unrealistic goals. I think 50% right now is very achievable. With an EFW or energy-from-waste component, or using some of the biomass capabilities from waste products, I think we can get to the next 20%. Getting to 90% will take a lot of time and effort and a lot of changes.
In the past I've talked about Crest toothpaste. People buy Crest toothpaste, and it's in a package. When people say, “Why do we need a package for Crest toothpaste?”, I ask them, “Would your wife or your mother go out and buy a tube of Crest toothpaste that wasn't properly sealed? How would they know it wasn't contaminated?” Some of those things we're always going to get. We need to get packagers to become more involved in their packaging.
We're going there with the EPR program, or environmental producer responsibility program—sorry for all the acronyms—but in each province around the country they're very limited. They're very indirect. We need to nationalize them, if we can, and roll them out. One does not fit all, but everybody should be involved in those kinds of programs.
I want to disagree with Larry, I'm sorry. Maybe not 100% is possible, but I do believe that 99.9% is possible.
I think there are really two things keeping us from getting there. The first thing is alternatives that are cheaper. When I say “alternatives”, I'm talking about landfilling. As a former municipal politician who had a landfill in my municipality, it was just so damn attractive to save money by shipping it off there. It was short-term thinking, because landfills are long-term problems.
If you created the stick part of what I was getting at before by making it more expensive by putting in place a landfill tax, you would find that people would be a lot more interested in finding an alternative. Once you have the stick, match it with the carrot, which is the social marketing to make people aware of what they can do to become more responsible. Particularly youth today are much more likely to jump on that bandwagon.
It won't happen overnight, but I do believe it can be done. We have a saying in our business, “Making more from waste”. We feel that waste is an asset. It's a resource that needs to be managed properly, not only for the betterment of the environment but to make money. I'm all for doing that as well.
I disagree with Mr. Sopuck, of course. What is important is the polluter pays principle. At the moment, we give $1.3 billion to the oil and gas industry. We could use that money to encourage practices other than pollution. That is what the polluter pays principle is. Good practices must be supported and practices generating more pollution must be discouraged. We want what we can call ecological practices.
It has always surprised me that we are doing a federal-level study like this on managing municipal waste. That is why I see it as important for you to talk about. Mostly, municipalities and provinces take care of managing waste, but we have heard witnesses say that Canada's waste management record is the worst in the world. I was really surprised to learn that; I did not know. I would like to give you another chance to talk about your recommendations.
Mr. Harley, I think you talked about a national program to reduce waste to zero. Could you go into that idea more?
Mr. Conrad, I think you talked about a greenhouse gas registry and about carbon credits. Could you talk about what people call the cap-and-trade system?
I would like to know what your recommendations to the federal government are.
The floor is yours.
In terms of a national program, you are right, sir. When I was asked to come here, my first reaction was, why am I coming to address a federal committee? Municipal waste is the responsibility of the municipality. Waste from the ICI sector is the responsibility of the provinces. The advantage was that I had to do a little bit of research, and I started looking at where programs were successful and where programs were not successful. I found that programs were successful when there was a national program that encouraged all jurisdictions to be active participants in working toward a collective goal. If some jurisdictions had one set of rules and other jurisdictions had another, you ended up in a situation where people started shipping waste.
One of the biggest deterrents to waste management solutions in Ontario is Michigan. You can ship your waste across the border, dump it in somebody else's backyard, and have somebody else take care of it. I think we should be responsible, and that's where you, as the federal government, should be responsible, in terms of ensuring that a national program is in place.
I want to touch very briefly on your comment about put or pay. I am a little sensitive about that, because my Ottawa facility has had a contract dispute with the City of Ottawa about put or pay. When I came back to making the argument about the design, build, own, operate, my shareholders need to invest millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. We can't help a municipality do that by building a multimillion-dollar facility but not receiving enough waste to be able to justify that investment. Put or pay helps keep both parties honest. It encourages the municipalities to send you the waste, and it makes you honest by making sure that you build the right capacity to be able to deal with what you need to deal with.
I would like to thank the witnesses today for their recommendations. From a federal perspective, they are really interesting.
The federal government indeed has a role to play. It must not play every role, but it can play an important role, as you rightly mentioned. You mentioned two aspects at least. I hope that those aspects will be part of a report on the matter some day and that it will not gather dust on a shelf.
I am going to move quickly to another matter. Last week, a recent study was published in PLOS ONE. The study mentioned that, of the 369 imperiled species under the Species at Risk Act, the situation of115 of them has become worse, and 202 others have not improved at all, even though they are in peril.
That is why I want to introduce the following two motions.
Given the very minor improvement in the situation of species at risk, the first motion reads:
That the committee conduct a study on the implementation and funding of the Species at Risk Act.
As we would be beginning a new study, the other motion would be as follows:
That the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development end the examination of witnesses for the study on the management of municipal solid waste and industrial materials and proceed to the stage of consideration of a report.